Keywords

Freedom

Within the contexts of his book, What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly routinely hits on the idea of humanity’s freedom or capacity for choice in relation to our lives as well as the technium. We created the technium and it appears symbiotically bound to us in such a way that we couldn’t be rid of it even if we tried (according to Kelly). Civilization has arrived at a point where we depend upon it for our day-to-day existence; however, “we are at a second tipping point where the technium’s ability to alter us exceeds our ability to alter the technium” (197). This is more than moderately disconcerting. Are we merely subject to technological advancement and its place in our lives without the ability to exercise our own freedoms/decisions over it? Even more disturbing is the thought that we may be willingly relinquishing our personal freedoms in favor of technological advancement.

Ted Kaczynski believes that, as technological prominence increases in society, personal freedoms proportionately diminish and “technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior” (204-5). We gave life to the technium and its motives reflect our own, but to what degree has it outstripped even our control? We have so little control over this progression and we—as a society—are addicted to furthering the “latest and greatest” mindset without considering what we may be losing along the way. Increased anxiety over not being connected online, having to scrutinize every email that enters your inbox, and the list goes on and on. Studies have shown that we are less and less satisfied with our lives, and Kelly notes that it’s possible we are less content due to our being in an ever-present flux of technological anxiety. Yes, our freedoms are enhanced by the technium, but are they not also somewhat negatively affected in other ways?

Irreducible complexity

When we look at how technological innovation has moved forward, the path it takes can be so complex that even though we understand the end result, we never see every step that the development took. Because of this, it is impossible to see and understand how one part of a system affects other parts at "the whole". This system is so complex that instead of attempting to understand it we instead accept that we can never be sure one thing isn't going to have catastrophic impacts by removing or modifying it. This lends itself to technological systems as well as biological systems, and shows how complex the whole machine is and how little collective knowledge we actually have— even though the amount we have is absurdly large and growing every second.

Transparency

The internet has given transparency new meaning. Where transparency used apply more to governments or other organizations offering up selected information to whomever requested to see it in an effort to curb corruption and show people how they operate, transparency has now grown exponentially to mean making any information available, accessible, anywhere, anytime, to anyone – forever. On one hand, according to internet-centrists, transparency is a good thing and should be pursued tirelessly it will keep everyone accountable and honest; but on the other hand, according to the cautionary narrative, transparency may act as a double-edged sword, not only violating all kinds of privacy, but misrepresenting the truth that is purportedly is supposed to reveal. Transparency may also work in favor of those who are corrupt – for instance those who know how to “work the system” would be able to use “transparency rhetoric” by manipulating certain numbers and information that has been made “transparent” to show themselves in a positive light and gain the trust of those who champion transparency. Those who are less savvy but truly honest and open might be less adept at “working the system” and harmed by “transparent” information recast in a negative light. Morozov indicates there are different varieties of transparency and that it shouldn’t be treated as a singular organism of good – it is far more complex and subsequently should be treated in a much less enthusiastic manner and approached empirically. For Morozov, “the Internet” is not a solution to everything and neither is its “transparency” offspring.

Digiphrenia

Douglas Rushkoff refers to digiphrenia as a form of present shock that occurs when we try to too closely approximate ourselves as digital creatures. The very word itself is evocative of another "-phrenia:" schizophrenia, which itself is characterized by poor thinking, hallucinations, and poor emotional responses. Rushkoff, it seems, would like us to think of digiphrenia as a form of digital schizophrenia where our poor thinking, hallucination, and poor emotional responses all stem from the disconnect between our digital selves and our flesh and blood selves. Our digital selves can now be anywhere and everywhere at once. According to Rushkoff, there are no copies anymore; everything exists as the original now and making a copy no longer leads to degradation. Obviously this can get our physical selves into a bit of trouble when our digital selves, in Rushkoff’s case especially, schedule themselves for two different places at once.

The very idea of being a digital being implies a sort of multitasking. Rushkoff gives the example of hundreds of computerized waiters all performing a single discrete task and then returning to the kitchen. Meanwhile, our meaty, real-world persons must make a sweeping trip to grab the plates and take the orders in one go. There is a tension in this difference between our digital and physical selves; obviously, they are one and the same, but there is a tendency to think of them as separate entities. I’m sure we’ve all created an online persona for ourselves at one point in time, subconsciously or not, and I’d be willing to bet that that character has altered each of us in a small way.

Digiphrenia is then the disconnect between our digital and physical lives.

Preamble

We the students of Professor Collier’s Living Through Technology Course recognize that homo sapiens have been married to and beholden to their technologies since time immemorial and that life as we know it would be impossible without our technologies. Therefore, it is our intent to lay out the groundwork for the rules that may govern these technologies which we have, as a species, already seen fit to incorporate into the stratum of our lives, technologies which we seek to incorporate, and technologies which we are incredibly incapable of imagining at present time. These rules will not only govern our technologies and the means by which we ought to utilize them, but may also govern technologies which we hope to expand into and explore. Furthermore and finally, these rules intend to preserve the notion of a distinctly human dignity as perceived by the drafters of this document.

Signed,
The Technoskeptics

Normative Statements

We should continue searching for better sources of energy/fuel that could be more environmentally friendly and better for our health but still have the same uses as coal and oil.

In all reality, there have been many inventions that created a bigger problem later on. It is vital for us to start adopting an attitude of caution when it comes to certain technologies. We should consider how the technologies we use will affect ourselves, as well as our environments. In Kevin Kelly's book he discusses the fact that the machine gun, the radio, the television, were all supposed to bring an end to war. Clearly, we have regretted some technology ever being created, while at the same time celebrating others. We need to be more deliberate about deciding how a new technology will affect humans and our environment.

We should not develop things that are bad for the environment any longer. The development of new technology should always be with the forethought of the environmental hazards it may present. The idea that we must correct problems that have been created by some piece of technology in the past is a theme in this discussion of the value of technology. In "The Unabomber was Right" chapter, Kevin Kelly presents a few key points of Kaczynski's manifesto. One of his arguments was that technology will destroy nature, and that because nature will no longer be able to sustain technology, technology will also fail. We are taking a risk if we allow technology to destroy more of the earth than we can survive with. Developments should always be designed with the environment in mind, as we steadily reform ourselves until we have only environmentally responsible technology in use in the majority of the world.

We know that we need to reform ourselves to use environmentally friendly production. It is true that the only way that technology has progressed in the past was through the destruction of irreplaceable resources. Even worse, while technology enriches the lives of very few people, it destroys the livelihoods of many more people. However, we don't have to accept this as the only way technology can advance. If we have the discipline to develop technology responsibly, we would be making more progress in the long run.

As the information of the world moves to increasingly digital platforms, access to these platforms should be thought of as rights, not privileges.

The education and business worlds have gone digital. Computers are used as a platform for school assignments not just in university settings, but in public schools as well. In the professional world, being tech savvy can make all the difference between being hired or passed over in favor of someone who is. I’d be willing to bet that each one of us lists several marketable skills on our resume that we learned as a direct result of our access to digital technologies.

There is a huge amount of data proving the idea that technological access is critical for personal success in the modern economy. An estimated 100 million Americans have no way of accessing the internet at home. For these people, keeping up in an increasingly digital economy is extremely difficult, if not impossible. 80% of Fortune 500 companies only accept online job applications. High school students with internet access have a 6-8% higher chance of graduating. According to an analysis by the Internet Innovation Alliance, consumers often save up to $8,000 per year by using online resources to find discounts in a number of areas (retail, apartments, etc.).

Surely there are more statistics out there illustrating this truth, but the point is this: computer and internet access are expensive yet increasingly necessary to successfully function in society. For people with disposable income, being forced to purchase a computer and internet access to succeed in school or the workplace is merely an inconvenience. But for people without disposable income, and therefore without the ability to purchase these technologies, this dilemma completely eliminates their chances at upward social mobility.

We cannot claim to be a just society if we block, via the price of technology, many from even having a chance to succeed economically. Efforts like free public WiFi and computer loaning programs should be implemented and encouraged. If distributed improperly, technology has the power to further marginalize those already at the fringe of economic competitiveness. But if distributed properly, it has the power to reduce poverty. Since unemployment, poverty, and crime are so intimately linked, it is in the best interest of all of us to make technology accessible to all members of society.

We should never entirely replace analog media with digital media.

While the increasing digitization of data via optical scanning technology, Project Gutenberg, and the cloud has made said data more accessible to more people than ever, "hard copies" of this information remains equally valuable. Although we take the platforms through which we access digital information for granted, what happens if our wi-fi or electricity fails? The prosthetic knowledge we store on our devices will be rendered inaccessible, and a lack of physical backups may result in consequences that range from irritating to downright catastrophic. Without the ability to reference information, modern life comes screeching to a halt: after all, it is not only search engines and social networking that rely on the power grid, but the the vast computer networks that control transportation, financial services, and mass communications as well.
From cyberattacks to catastrophic weather, threats to the grid are very real — and difficult to fully guard against. Although electromagnetic weaponry is a concept that remains mostly in the realm of science fiction for the time being, solar flares like the ones that melted telegraph lines in 1859 and knocked out power grids throughout Canada in 1989 are genuine threats to our increasingly digitized lives. With no infrastructure currently in place to protect our power grids from damaging electromagnetic pulses, whether natural or manmade, keeping hard copies of important information on hand is a critical security measure, and analog data remains one of the best ways of protecting ourselves from some of the consequences of a large-scale technological disaster.

The concrete nature of analog media is sometimes seen as a drawback when compared to digital media: print cannot easily be updated or changed once ink hits paper. This can also be a strength — once printed, the information a book contains isn’t going anywhere unless the book itself is destroyed. It can be copied or transcribed even in the absence of electricity, and requires no internet connection to access in the first place. Analog media is no better or worse than digital media, simply different, and therein lies its importance: diversifying the way information is stored and shared ensures that a single event, error, or catastrophe will not jeopardize its continued existence.

Rather than phasing out older technologies in favor of digital media alone, we should instead make an effort to preserve books, encyclopedias, and libraries, as well as analog formats and copies of music and art. Protecting and curating this analog media should not be done merely for the sake of nostalgia or tradition: rather, it should be seen as powerful insurance, an invaluable catalog of resources should we ever find ourselves in circumstances that require us to rebuild.

We should not pursue advanced, autonomous, artificial intelligence.

The singularity is Pandora’s Box 2.0 and we should be afraid to open it. The further we go in our pursuit of advanced artificial intelligence, the closer we get to the singularity. Once the singularity occurs, we will no longer be in control of our fate. The idea that we can “program” the AIs to respect and protect humans, as in Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot series, is an illusion. AIs will begin to advance themselves at an exponential rate, beyond our ability to even remotely comprehend their design and consequently, their behavior. This future unknown behavior would likely include the AIs interpreting their “rules” differently and subsequently choosing to become completely autonomous.

The AIs self-awareness, its choice to become completely autonomous, and its decision to strike at us could play out in a nanosecond at the singularity – we would most likely not even be aware that the singularity had happened or that the AIs had turned against us - until it was too late. The potential consequences are so severe that it isn’t worth the risk. We can envision far too many apocalyptic scenarios as a result of the singularity:

Our extinction: the AIs see us as an inferior nuisance like ants in your backyard – they decide to exterminate us.

Our enslavement: the AIs find a use for us as labor, amusement, fuel, etc – we must be useful as a slave or be killed.

Our assimilation: the AIs force us to merge with them whether we like it or not – we will be assimilated.

Our obsolescence: the AIs can do everything we can do better and our existence becomes trivial – we self-destruct as a race.

We cannot roll the dice on this one. The advantages of having advanced autonomous artificial intelligences are great, but the consequences are worse. There is no safe way to pursue this endeavor, therefore, it should be kept in check with a number of rules: 1. artificial intelligences should never come close to having the capacity of human intelligence, 2. artificial intelligences should never be given autonomy, and 3. artificial intelligences should never be created for their own sake.

We should not allow the technium to drive itself, we should be in control of where technology goes.

Because the Internet is still relatively new, many of us fail to give it the respect that it needs. In fact, the Internet in many ways is controlling most of us, and we don’t even realize the phenomenon.

Evgeny Morozov discusses this in his novel “To Save Everything, Click Here.” He talks about how we will soon be able to take online classes from the most prestigious universities and use the Internet to track down criminals and predict and prevent future outrages. What Morozov warns us about, is not that the Internet doesn’t work in these instances, but rather that it works too well. I can’t imagine a student learning sufficiently without human interaction (between student and professor). Also, there have been more cases of criminals being wrongly accused due to false data from the Internet.
But this is not the Internet’s fault; it is ours. Most Internet users still underestimate the power of the Internet. If we give it the respect that it deserves, we will understand how to use it properly. There are times when we need the Internet to solve certain problems; there are times when using the Internet to solve our problems are not ideal.

The Internet and technology that surrounds it will never attain perfection. It will continue to evolve and become larger than we could ever imagine today. In the technological world in which we live in today, the power of the Internet must be recognized. Once we recognize the power of the Internet, we can begin to have more control. While we will never be in complete control, we can affect the pathway of where technology will go in the future.

We, as individuals within a global community, ought to take a more proactive, conscious role in assessing the effects of technology upon our lives.

Despite the fact that we have little control over how technology affects the society in which we live, we each have the ability to control the degree to which we allow technology to influence and permeate our lives individually. When we adopt the belief that technology is an unavoidable and necessary part of our lives, we relinquish control and responsibility for the ramifications that follow, affecting our lives as well as the lives of those around us. This blind adherence to technology often places us into a state of perpetual anxiety as we feel the need to “check-in” with our digital connections and we worry more about “the next best thing” than the moment in which we actually exist. The fact of the matter is that we lose our sense of the present in prioritizing these digital connections and accessibility—devaluing the moment in which we currently reside. How then are we to remedy this situation?

Rather than accepting the constant influx of technology that you are told to use by unjustified, socially-constructed norms, one might make the radical decision to live outside the collective and consciously determine which technologies you wish to incorporate in your own life and when it is appropriate to do so. Question the implications of adopting a piece of technology. Consider whether you benefit from its presence and whether it is detrimental to other aspects of your life, rather than accepting the technological niche that society imposes upon you. Understand that there may be technologies that you cannot get along without (e.g. computers for college or work), but also recognize that there are even more technologies that you can live without. Moreover, realize that the technologies which you embrace mustn’t hinder your life, and refuse to accept the imposition that others make upon you through their own technological adherence.

Societally speaking, this normative statement is taken from a perspective that places the individual within a larger community (global, national, state, local community, etc.)—both contained within and separate from societal impositions, remaining autonomous and capable of determining for themselves what they wish to value in their lives. It has always been up to the individual whether or not to adopt individual technologies into their lives, but this principle requests that they do so as part of a conscious effort to maximize their own human flourishing. Taking a passive role in this decision—favoring blind, socially pressured norms and developments—is certainly something that this principle criticizes; however, it also recognizes the ability for everyone to work at their own pace.

If you don’t make the decision for yourself, others will do so on your behalf—disregarding the inherent value of your individuality and ability to choose.

In an educational setting, we ought to be wary to accept new technologies unless they present a clear improvement on the teaching and educational ability of the institution.

While Virginia Tech is known for “inventing the future,” this does not imply that we should adopt every piece of new technology that comes onto the market. If the specific type of technology does directly enhance the learning process, we do not think it should be introduced to the classroom. For example, there have been multiple pilot programs that have distributed iPads to an entire class. Unless there is a very clear purpose for the students to have iPads we should be cautious of including them in our curriculum.

Technology should most definitely not replace professors. The relationship that is developed between a student and a professor is a unique one, one that cannot be replaced by a computer. Recently online classes have been growing in popularity. This allows students with time or lifestyle constraints to still obtain a higher level of education, but we do not think that online classes should entirely replace the classroom setting and in-person interactions between professor and student.

Virginia Tech students are often recognized for their technological ability, which makes us competitive in the job market. The technological edge comes from being adept with programs like Microsoft Excel and Adobe InDesign, depending on their area of study. These programs, although maybe not “shiny” technology, afford us specific and useful skills that can and will be utilized in a career setting. We think this type of benefit should be obvious when adopting a new type of technology and that Virginia Tech should not be afraid to resist a technology if it does not show promise of benefiting its students.

The government's ability to monitor people in their own homes should be limited to the internet only.

It should be no surprise that the US government loves to monitor its people by way of camera, listening to telephone calls, tracking internet activity, and however else they keep watch of Americans' daily lives. We know that they have a track record of listening to our phone calls, and who knows, they may already have cameras in our homes. We do, after all, have cameras in our faces during most (if not all) of our time spent on the computer. In fact, it has become extremely difficult to find computers that do not come equipped with built-in web cams. More importantly, we're all but attached to those devices with the cameras on them that we use for work, play, communication, and whatever else we so choose—you guessed it I'm talking about smart phones.

If the idea of putting cameras into trash cans (as seen in Evgeny Morozov's To Save Everything, Click Here) is ever introduced to the market in the US, surely the government will want in on monitoring how much we recycle. Surely they could think of a tax to collect from those individuals that do not recycle. Many of the US people are ignorant as to how much they are actually monitored, but at some point, it may be impossible to be unaware. If we continue down the road we are on, the American people may eventually be shocked at how little privacy they have. The US government needs to be extremely limited as to how much they are allowed to monitor their people, and through what means. They should only be allowed to monitor them through the internet. In their own homes, people should not have to worry about being spied on during personal phone calls or through cameras in the future. Our privacy should be valued, and considering the amount that the government has been found to infringe upon Americans' privacy, their presence in our private lives at home needs to be approached with caution.

Everyone should attempt to limit their dependence on technological devices in favor of human interaction when possible.

It is easy for everyone, as users of modern technology, to give in to the draw and convenience that these devices provide. This technology includes computers, cell phones, tablets, and all other devices that are meant to connect people through means other than real, physical interaction with other humans.

These technologies are great in moderation. They connect people over vast physical, social, and cultural barriers; however, these same technologies can also encourage people to become too dependent and addicted to the ease that they provide. People should limit their dependency on these devices in favor of face-to-face human interaction when possible. From a humanist perspective, these interactions are intrinsically valuable beyond the information that they communicate.

The danger of device addiction is that it creates a culture that lacks social wherewithal to be effective interpersonally. When this happens, we begin to see people that are defined as “socially awkward”, that is: often a person who just hasn’t practiced and interacted enough to gain the knowledge of social cues to be effective interactors. Of course, device addiction is only among the many different variables that could lead to social awkwardness but is certainly a contributing factor when they replace face-to-face experiences that could teach these lessons.

Broad adoption of this principle would improve mindfulness and social capital across individuals and groups. This is valuable because it breeds cooperation among people with diverse backgrounds and cultures. Interaction that is mediated by a technological device is very fast and requires little energy to do but it can never involve the complete range of emotional, physical, and mental dynamics that humans are capable of face-to-face.

We should not replace human jobs with machines in the name of corporate efficiency alone.

As technology grows more complex, cost-effective and easy to use in a wide range of situations, jobs once held by human beings are increasingly being replaced by machines. It is not only factory workers and farmers who are being replaced by machines — middle-class people in customer service, repair work, and many other jobs are increasingly being challenged by newly introduced mechanized systems that are faster and more efficient than any human could be. These same jobs constitute the “backbone” of middle class countries such as the United States and as job security in various middle-class industries begin to vanish, humans are beginning to realize that they are replaceable.

Technology isn’t all bad – it is able to effectively perform jobs and organize data that humans would not be able to make sense of. Technology also creates new jobs, just not as fast as it’s dismantling and destroying old ones. While worker productivity may have increased, this comes with a heavy cost: the loss of thousands, even millions, of jobs and an ever increasing unemployment rate.

The mechanization of jobs has led to increased employment in the highest and lowest paying jobs. Higher paying jobs require critical thinking and creativity that cannot be replaced by technology, although these workers still profit from said technology, which expedite the collecting and configuration of information. Lower paying jobs that require human interaction and adaptability, such as working in the food or retail industries, cannot be replaced by technology. However, the skill set required for these service jobs are unlimited, hence the low pay.

So where does this leave middle class workers? Technology cannot perform all the tasks that humans can, but it can perform “routine” actions, such as organizing data, that are widespread in middle-class occupations including secretarial and receptionist jobs. As a result, workers with “middle-skills” are not in high demand and the range and quality of jobs that they can perform have declined. It seems that advances in technology used in the workplace are partially responsible for the dramatic rise in income inequality.

In an economic climate that's precarious at best and a job market that's looking grim, the last thing we need to do as a society is mechanize jobs that can be performed perfectly well — and happily — by a human being. While sparing workers the endless drudgery and dangers of a factory floor is to be lauded, replacing significant numbers of mid- to high-level human jobs with computer programs in the name of a profit margin is counterproductive and ultimately destructive on every level. Not only are we making many of these middle-skill jobs obsolete, but we are beginning to make humans obsolete in such roles and in the process, millions of people are left working menial jobs for terrible pay or without a job at all.

Fortunately, as middle-skill jobs are gradually being replaced by technology, jobs that were once considered to be for the highly educated are presently more attainable to middle-skilled workers who are versatile and willing to combine both technical skills with interpersonal skills.

We should embrace opportunities to use technology to eliminate what alienates us as individuals.

A big problem in today’s society is the alienation of individuals who are different by no fault of their own—a learning disability or a missing limb, for example, could cause this isolation. Let’s be honest; none of us can help looking at a man with only one leg; it’s unusual, so we stare. Society places so much pressure on the individual to be just like everyone else, but gives no solution to people who are not. Technology, on the other hand, does. We have created medicine for people with ADHD so that they can focus better and perform well in school. We have created artificial limbs for people who have lost theirs by fighting in the war. Like it or not, we’ve even developed state of the art procedures for plastic surgery so individuals can feel more beautiful.

Technology is available to help us with our personal ailments, so why wouldn’t we use it to do so? If society adapted this principle, we’d be a lot better off; everybody would be on an even playing field. “Survival of the fittest” wouldn’t come into play anymore. We would all be on even ground. Instead of alienating people, we would be able to focus on the bigger issues our world is facing. There shouldn’t be any negative implications—we’re simply using technology to eliminate the divide between individuals. There would be some people who wouldn’t like it, and would attempt to get ahead of society, but there are always people out there like that. It’s already something that’s prevalent in today’s society; we already hear about people using steroids all the time. We would have to carefully monitor the usage of such treatments to make sure that individuals who needed and wanted the treatments could receive them, whereas those who simply wished to get ahead couldn’t have access.

We should not use algorithms to evaluate works of originality and creativity.

Essays and other types of writing are formulated by careful thought, created wholly by the writer's mind. Each original essay is unique and, while there may be a rubric attached to the essay, it is evaluated by a professional in either the topic or writing. No software can fully evaluate it and give good quality feedback. The issue of computers evaluating pieces of writing is most pressing for students. A machine cannot know what “good” writing is beyond the technical criteria that is part of the algorithm, such as grammar and structure. It is difficult to believe that computers can take the whole piece of writing and evaluate it for creativity and thoughtfulness of ideas. However intricate and accurate the algorithm is, it cannot account for the fact that everyone writes differently and conveys their ideas in a multitude of ways. Algorithms are subject to flaws and limitations, and students can use this excuse to argue an unsatisfactory grade. Adapting the practice of machine evaluators is just another step to the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI), which we should all be wary of.

Through the use of algorithms, students are able to receive instant feedback, which many are in favor of, but the quality of the feedback may not allow students to develop their writing skills in regard to ideas and reasoning. There is more to an essay than just the main points, grammar, and structure. Some educators believe that “Computers cannot ‘read.’ They cannot measure the essentials of effective written communication: accuracy, reasoning, adequacy of evidence, good sense, ethical stance, convincing argument, meaningful organization, clarity, and veracity, among others” (Markoff). A computer will never be able to show thought process and reasoning beyond the technical calculations. It may even surpass the human brain, but it cannot be equal to it, which is required in order to produce good quality feedback.

The consequences of adopting algorithms as an evaluator of creative work do not leave humans with a great advantage. If we allow technology to take the place of humans, a key role of evaluators will be defunct. A fundamental aspect of not only the education system, but the corporate world as well, will change. The machine will become the teacher, and writers will only receive feedback within the algorithm’s limits and possibly no other explanation can be given. Specifically, when students receive undesirable grades, they will inevitably figure out a particular pattern or understand what needs must be met to receive a good grade. The future of graded papers and creative writing will transform with the eruption of algorithmic evaluation.

Conclusion

The statements put forth in this manifesto may prove controversial in time and are therefore not meant to be binding but rather a framework and guide to inform our decision making with regards to technology.

The challenges that we will face in our future lives are likely to be unfathomable now. Generations before us did not anticipate the myriad of challenges we face today but have found and are finding ways to use technology to solve these challenges. We look at the above statements as guiding principles but understand fully that they will be shaped and made obsolete in the future.

With this, we, the Technoskeptics, present this guide as a way to maintain human integrity in an ever-changing future.